Here are a few arguments made against creationism a while ago now on the Infidel Guy podcast, when he was talking to Frank Zindler.
Zindler made a huge attack on creationism as it is told in Genesis. Two points that I found particularly interesting (although I'd heard them before) were the fact that a literal interpretation of Genesis requires a flat Earth, and an argument made on that favourite science topic of creationists - the fossil record.
The 'flat Earth' requirement comes from the six days it supposedly takes to make the Earth. Well, if we take this literally it is nonsense, at any time half of the Earth is in day, the other half in night. At the poles day and night are 6 months each! If on the other hand we take 'day' to be a significant length of time, then the order of creation is ridiculous.
My favourite argument is however based on the fossil record. Creationists often use this as a trump card in disproving evolution, even though there are so many intermediary forms in the record that to claim it doesn't support evolution is wrong. But anyway, surely if, as many creationists believe, we lived at the same time as the dinosaurs (who in some cases could breathe fire in order to explain dragons), then there should be fossil records of people ad dinosaurs in the same strata. None has been found. There are also other glaring inconsistencies that support evolution, there is a cut off point for pollen from angiosperms, even though there are other plant fossils before this date.
I just love the fact that one of the creationists trump cards has been turned on them!
02/04/2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have a simple critique in defense of creationism, as I think it is in a sense "alternative science". If one can assume the axiom of a powerful God with sufficient causal power, one can endorse creationism. That evolution currently exists is undeniable. To argue that it happened in the past, though, is philosophically assuming the axiom of the past resembling the present. The past could have had different scientific precepts than the present, or there could not have been a Big Bang but a moment of Creation in which God created the Earth. I don't find creationism to be essential to the Christian message, but it does seem to be in tune with Aristotle's four causes and is undeniably possible, even if, I admit it seems unlikely for those who do not believe. The most important lesson to be learned is that there are many possible scientific explanations, and mainstream science must be wrong in a lot of its current ideas, because if we examine the past we will see many things have been corrected. Reason is only instrumental to the truth; where it ends, faith begins.
Peace and Love unto You!
Where spitfireatme goes wrong is multifold.
1) Creationism does not follow the scientific method. It is an alternative to science, not an alternative science.
2) Science does not make unfounded assumptions. The axiom of a powerful god is an unfounded assumption.
3) Nothing suggests that the basic laws of science have changed over time.
4) There is only one 'right' scientific explanation, we may not have found it yet, but we're using the right method to get it (i.e. not relying on revealed truths).
5) Reason s only instrumental to the truth. Does this mean that where truth ends faith begins? That sounds very plausible!
Post a Comment